| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |
| Date: | 2017-04-14 19:00:33 |
| Message-ID: | cf9f987c-2d1d-55ff-d064-d5563271fa9e@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/13/17 18:09, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> It would have the
> disadvantage that if some tables were consistently failing, no other
> tables could get synchronized as the amount of workers is limited. OTOH
> the approach chosen in the patch will first try all tables and only then
> start rate limiting, not quite sure which is better.
I think the latter is better.
One of the scenarios cited originally somewhere was one table failing
because of an encoding issue. So it's useful to allow other tables to
continue.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-14 19:05:13 | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-14 18:59:05 | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |